A forum for those current students who are or may be transferring from one school to another. Post any questions, advice, or other transfer related comments here.

Forum rulesAnonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only available to the creator of each thread. The anonymous posting feature is intended to permit the solicitation of anonymous advice regarding the transfer application process, chances of being accepted, etc. Unacceptable uses include: testing the feature, questions which are clearly fake or hypothetical in nature, harassing other users, etc. Posters should also read and understand the announcements posted at the top of the Transfers forum prior to using the anonymous feature.

Midleton wrote: I was in the top 10%, but had a much stronger LSAT than most people at Cooley - in fact it was roughly a median score for my T30. I simply had a terrible UGPA.

LSAT is meaningless for transfer admissions. No schools that I know of consider your LSAT score in making a transfer admissions decision. It's pointless to use an LSAT score after you have actual law school grades. The whole point of the LSAT is to predict your law school performance. If you have actual grades, there's no need to use a predictor.

Midleton wrote: I was in the top 10%, but had a much stronger LSAT than most people at Cooley - in fact it was roughly a median score for my T30. I simply had a terrible UGPA.

LSAT is meaningless for transfer admissions. No schools that I know of consider your LSAT score in making a transfer admissions decision. It's pointless to use an LSAT score after you have actual law school grades. The whole point of the LSAT is to predict your law school performance. If you have actual grades, there's no need to use a predictor.

Harvard claims to consider whether or not you would have been competitive for admission out of UG when evaluating a transfer application.

Stringer Bell wrote:Harvard claims to consider whether or not you would have been competitive for admission out of UG when evaluating a transfer application..

No, they do not.

You would obviously know better than I do. I swear I thought I saw that on the site or in an interview posted somewhere and thinking it was weird. Maybe it was Yale or maybe I imagined it.

It's an oft-perpetuated misreading of the HLS website, which actually says:

COMPETITION FOR TRANSFER ADMISSION

The competition for transfer admission is high. Many successful transfer candidates typically place very near the top of their first-year law class and would have also been admitted or wait-listed as first-year students on the basis of their pre-law-school credentials. Given the small number of transfer spaces available and a comparatively large and accomplished transfer applicant pool, some applicants who meet these characterizations cannot be offered admission. We cannot make estimates of an individual's chances for admission.

The bolded is the source of the confusion; people think the "would have also been admitted or wait-listed as first year students" means you have to be eligible to be admitted as a first-year. But this makes no sense whatsoever; if someone wanted to go to Harvard badly enough that they'd bother trying to transfer, and they were able to get in the first time around, why not just go there in the first place?

Besides, I'm proof that's not what it means. I have my rejection letter from the first time around. There was no WL, and I certainly did not have the necessary UGPA or LSAT to get in. Yet, here I am. So are many others who transferred from T20 or T30 schools and would've likely jumped at the chance to go to Harvard the first time around if they could.

I suspect, based on what I know now, the "pre-law-school credentials" part is the actual intended message. I think they're saying that the typically accepted transfer has a resume as impressive as the typical entering student. This fits with what I've learned about the transfer policy here; apparently they actively screen the transfer pool for people with substantial WE. So they are looking for something in common with first-year admits, but it's not UGPA or LSAT.

Midleton wrote:I transferred from Cooley to a T30 last year. I was in the top 10%, but had a much stronger LSAT than most people at Cooley - in fact it was roughly a median score for my T30. I simply had a terrible UGPA.

I was able to get my transcripts sent without a problem, although I did know of a student who had a letter of good standing sent that erroneously stated he was not in good standing. Also, the first professor I asked for LoR wrote one for me. If you ask around you'll meet some people who know people who have transferred and they will be able to tell you which professors will write a LoR. As I'm sure you know, some professors at Cooley refuse to write LoRs for transfer purposes.

I'm not the only person from Cooley to transfer to a T30, so it is possible. Good luck.

related to this note, i heard from someone today that their friend at cooley was trying to transfer ED to chicago and cooley straight up refused to send the supplemental form that chicago requires, asking about standing and ranking information.

Stringer Bell wrote:Harvard claims to consider whether or not you would have been competitive for admission out of UG when evaluating a transfer application..

No, they do not.

You would obviously know better than I do. I swear I thought I saw that on the site or in an interview posted somewhere and thinking it was weird. Maybe it was Yale or maybe I imagined it.

It's an oft-perpetuated misreading of the HLS website, which actually says:

COMPETITION FOR TRANSFER ADMISSION

The competition for transfer admission is high. Many successful transfer candidates typically place very near the top of their first-year law class and would have also been admitted or wait-listed as first-year students on the basis of their pre-law-school credentials. Given the small number of transfer spaces available and a comparatively large and accomplished transfer applicant pool, some applicants who meet these characterizations cannot be offered admission. We cannot make estimates of an individual's chances for admission.

The bolded is the source of the confusion; people think the "would have also been admitted or wait-listed as first year students" means you have to be eligible to be admitted as a first-year. But this makes no sense whatsoever; if someone wanted to go to Harvard badly enough that they'd bother trying to transfer, and they were able to get in the first time around, why not just go there in the first place?

Besides, I'm proof that's not what it means. I have my rejection letter from the first time around. There was no WL, and I certainly did not have the necessary UGPA or LSAT to get in. Yet, here I am. So are many others who transferred from T20 or T30 schools and would've likely jumped at the chance to go to Harvard the first time around if they could.

I suspect, based on what I know now, the "pre-law-school credentials" part is the actual intended message. I think they're saying that the typically accepted transfer has a resume as impressive as the typical entering student. This fits with what I've learned about the transfer policy here; apparently they actively screen the transfer pool for people with substantial WE. So they are looking for something in common with first-year admits, but it's not UGPA or LSAT.